Charlottesville Tomorrow Blog

Downtown Zoning changes moving forward

The Charlottesville City Council has held the first of two readings of an ordinance to change the City’s zoning code to adjust the size of buildings allowed in the Downtown area and the West Main Street corridor.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080505-CC-DowntownZoning.mp3

The work was the result of a committee made up of architects, City planning staff, concerned citizens, Planning Commissioners, and members of the Board of Architectural Review. They were charged with reviewing the City’s zoning code to consider the impact of new nine story buildings (101 feet tall)  being built on or near the downtown mall, something previously allowed by-right by property owners.  The Committee’s recommended changes have been endorsed by the Planning Commission, and are now before the Council.

“I think what you see are some changes that will be significant in what they would protect in the downtown area, but not significant in the changes in the impact to the development community,” said Jim Tolbert, the City’s Director of Neighborhood Services Development.

• Downtown Corridor would lower the by-right height to 70’, but allow up to 101’ with special use permit
• Only one stepback will be required in tall buildings, eliminating the “wedding-cake” effect
• West Main South by-right height raised to 70’, with potential of up to 101’ with special use permit
• West Main North by-right height raised from 50’ to 60’, up to 70’ with special use permit
• A new Water Street zoning district to be created, lowering by-right height to 70’ from 101’, up to 101’ allowed with special use permit
• South side of South Street gets new zoning district, with by-right building heights lowered to 45’ from 101’, with no opportunity to go higher with a special use permit
• A new “Corner District” will be created for West Main from 12th Street W to Chancellor Street, with no changes. Committee recommends further study

Pedestrians walk past the building site for the Landmark Hotel, one of the nine story buildings that prompted the discussion

Councilor Julian Taliaferro said he liked what the committee had done. Councilor David Brown, who created the committee when he served as Mayor, thanked the committee for “creating a fair proposal.”

Councilor Satyendra Huja said he was concerned the changes could result in “stumps” of single tall buildings along West Main Street. He said 101’ was too tall for the corridor. No other Councilors shared the concern, and the ordinance will come back for a second reading at the next meeting on May 19.

Sean Tubbs

Second Mall crossing permanent; cost estimate reduced from $1 million

The Do Not Enter signs will come down after this stretch of 4th Street SE will convert to two-way traffic

Motorists will continue to have a second way to drive across Charlottesville’s downtown pedestrian mall. City Council voted 3-2 at its meeting on April 7, 2008 to make the south-bound crossing at 4th Street SE permanent. Mayor Dave Norris and Councilor Holly Edwards both voted against the resolution.  

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast:Download 20080407-CC-Mall-Crossing.mp3

Council also approved a recommendation by the Planning Commission to reopen 4th Street SE to two-way traffic just to the south of Water Street. The road is currently north-bound only from Garrett to Water Street, but that restriction will be dropped for a one-year trial period.

Council’s action comes nearly two years after the 4th Street crossing was first opened on a trial basis after 7th Street SE was closed to make way for the extension of the Mall to the Charlottesville Pavilion. Council voted in June 2007 to extend the trial, but former City Councilor Kevin Lynch directed staff to evaluate whether 5th Street would make a better crossing.  Staff recommended keeping the crossing where it is, and the Planning Commission agreed at its meeting in March 2008.

The Commission also suggested reducing parking on 4th Street SE between Market and Water, and suggested opening up the crossing during Pavilion events. Currently it is closed because of the increased number of pedestrians, but some Commissioners felt it should always be open.  Council sided with the views of the Police Department, who want to see the crossing closed during special events.

Neighborhood Services Director Jim Tolbert said that the $1 million cost estimate that has
been associated with the construction of a permanent crossing is no longer accurate.  That figure assumes that the utilities along 4th Street SE would be placed underground and that the sidewalks would get a major upgrade – key features of the Mall renovation project.    

“What’s being recommended now…  is that we would just do the bricking improvements as part of the redesign of the Mall project,” Tolbert said. “What we want on both 2nd Street W and 4th Street E is to make sure that any automobile coming up realizes they’re entering into a pedestrian space.”

Tolbert’s resolution for Council did not include any changes in side street parking, pending the result of an ongoing study on the City’s needs. NDS staff will also begin studying 4th Street E to see if two-way traffic affects traffic patterns in neighborhoods to the south.

While there was no public hearing on the resolution, two citizens addressed the matter during the Council’s public comment period.  Former City Council Candidate Peter  Kleeman pleaded with City to take time to study the need for the crossing, which he said infringed on pedestrian space. Collette Hall of the North Downtown Neighborhood Association asked Council to not re-open 4th Street E to two-way traffic out of a concern that the roadway would become a short-cut.

Sean Tubbs

City Planners discuss downtown building heights

A three-dimensional depicting the heights allowed in a full zoning build-out allowed under the proposed zoning ordinance change (Image: City of Charlottesville)

The Charlottesville Planning Commission will wait one more month to give further consideration to an amendment to the City’s downtown zoning ordinances which would change by-right building heights.  New structures exceeding those limits would require a special use permit.  The City’s consideration of new building height limits began in mid-2006 in response to a rush of 9-story building proposals on and around the Downtown Mall.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080324-CPC-Work-Session.mp3

At their March 25, 2008 work session, the Commission also discussed ordinance issues related to housing density and the Commission’s policy for public input at work sessions.  The Commission will finalize recommendations for City Council at a future meeting.

BUILDING HEIGHTS

Five 9-story building projects in the downtown are in various stages of development. They are the Waterhouse, the Landmark Hotel, 201 Avon, the Coal Tower, and the corner of Ridge-McIntire/West Main.

Former Mayor David Brown appointed a task force consisting of Commissioners, members of the Board of Architectural Review, and key stakeholders, many of whom were in attendance at the work session.  The study initially looked at both building heights and allowed residential densities, but those were split into separate items to be considered separately by the Planning Commission.

 “Essentially we were concerned with two things. One was that the [by-right] overall heights allowed in the downtown area might be too high,” Tolbert said. “And we had the conflict that really initiated this with the Keith Woodard building at First and Main where we have a provision in the BAR’s guidelines that say no building or structure should be more than two times the mass and height of surrounding properties.”  Tolbert said the latter standard would have prevented nearly any tall building downtown.

This chart lists the changes that would be made to the zoning ordinance (click through to read)

Currently, a new building in the downtown mall district (north of Water Street and south of Jefferson) Street would have a by-right development height of 101 feet. The proposed ordinance change would lower that to 70 feet, but would allow a developer to apply for a special use permit to construct to 101 feet. 

Buildings on the south side of West Main Street are currently restricted to sixty feet by-right, with 80 feet allowed with a special use permit. The ordinance change would raise the by-right height to 70 feet, but would allow a height of 101 feet with a special use permit. That would increase by at least two stories the height of buildings on that side of the street.

On the other side of the street, buildings are currently allowed to be 50 feet tall by-right, with no opportunity to apply for a special use permit. Under the amendments, the by-right figure would be raised to 60 feet, with 70 feet allowed with a special use permit.

The committee also recommended changing the zoning ordinance to create a new district for the Corner, but to make no changes at this time to the existing zoning.  Other changes would be made to the required streetwall and stepbacks, as noted in the chart to the right.

Commissioner Genevieve Keller asked why the committee felt the need to raise by-right building heights on West Main Street. Tolbert said the Committee felt that West Main could use more height, and that the proposed changes would provide “symmetry on the street.”

Commissioner Dan Rosensweig asked why buildings on the south side could be 31 feet taller than on the north. Tolbert said one factor is that the lots on the south are separated from other neighborhoods by the railroad.

The ordinances would also institute minimum heights for downtown for the first time. Commissioner Keller asked if a property owner whose building is destroyed in a disaster would be forced to build to the maximum height. Former City Planner Ashley Cooper served on the committee, and now works for developer Bill Atwood. Cooper said the non-conformities could be allowed in certain situations.

Commissioner Keller also asked if there was more information on what the existing street heights are on West Main Street, saying that she needed to better understand how higher buildings would affect the street. Kay Slaughter, who represents the Southern Environmental Law Center on the committee, said they used anecdotal evidence. Keller said she wanted more concrete information.

“We’re making major decisions that will affect the development and redevelopment process,” Keller said. “I think it’s important that people understand what the base is before we make changes.” 

The Monticello building on 5th and E. Jefferson (left) stands tall above its neighbors

Commissioner Farruggio pointed out that under the ordinance changes, a developer could build a 70 foot building on the southern side of East Jefferson Street. Currently the tallest building on that side is the former Monticello Hotel, but no other building is currently taller than three stories. Farruggio recommended revisiting the zoning for that street and suggested a 40 foot maximum. Tolbert  pointed out that the by-right height was recently as high as 187, but that the Committee didn’t address Jefferson Street.  He suggested the boundary for the Downtown North district be extended south to cover the issue.  Keller said she would like to see some changes for Jefferson as well.  Tolbert agreed to make the adjustments, as well as slight adjustments for the South and Water districts

Rosensweig asked how a street that had two different sets of building height standards could appear to be part of the same street. Committee and BAR Member Fred Wolf pointed out that street walls and step backs would be the way in which planners can establish continuity for a street.

Keller also said she was concerned about a 101 foot building at the intersection of what used to be the corner of Garrett and Ridge Streets (the roads are no longer connected). Currently that site is occupied by the firm Macrosoft, and is proposed to have the same classification as West Main South. Tolbert wasn’t certain that was correct, and that may have been a mapping error. “The Committee has never focused on that [area],” he said.

Councilor David Brown asked Tolbert about the timeline for the ordinance changes. Tolbert said he had hoped to have the Planning Commission vote on the recommendations in April, but that would now need to be pushed back to May.

Brown said it was important to work fast. “The longer we take, the more properties get affected because someone has moved ahead in the mean-time,” Brown said. He suggested breaking the ordinance change into pieces so the areas that had been studied could be rezoned. Keller asked if that would be legal. Tolbert said it was legal to move forward with anything less than the whole of what had been advertised. Farruggio said he was reluctant to do move forward on a piecemeal basis. Deputy City Attorney Rich Harris said he would rather see it move forward as one ordinance change.

Keller said she was concerned with treating the two sides of West Main Street differently. “It troubles me from a design point of view that we would be encouraging buildings to be considerably taller on one side of the street than the other, “ Keller said. Farruggio said the setback of 15 feet would allow for the creation of a wide sidewalk extending all the way from the University of Virginia to the Downtown Mall.

Keller also said she would prefer to see the West Main corridor be split into two zoning districts out of a concern that the City was approving far too much for developers. “I wonder if we’re biting off too much at one time. Having lived here all of my life and watched all the development patterns it seems like we get one or two major buildings  a decade and so I really don’t believe we’re going to have a boulevard of very tall buildings. I think these will be cherry picked, and so I would really like to see us move ahead incrementally.”

Farruggio said he supported changing the zoning for all of Water Street now to take advantage of redevelopment that is soon to come.

 “There’s three very large areas that are ready for redevelopment and I would want to capitalize on what may occur there because I really want to get, and I think that we as a City really are moving awards getting the density to get some transit working, and I want to have the same plan for the whole area,” Farruggio said. Lewis agreed that all of West Main should be planned at this time, but also questioned why the two sides of the road would have different allowed heights.

Osteen said he thought the asymmetry would be imperceptible because of the setbacks and stepbacks.

Commission discusses reduced density proposal

After the discussion on building heights concluded, the topic moved to the issue of changing the allowed densities. Tolbert said the public hearing on these changes would not come until after the building heights issues moves forward.

Tolbert said staff was concerned that the by-right densities under existing zoning were set too high, denying the opportunity for the City to require a project developer to address impacts on infrastructure. For example, the developers are currently allowed 87 units per acre by-right, with an opportunity to apply for a special use permit to reach 200. For downtown, he suggested reducing the by-right to 43 units per acre and up to 240 units with an SUP.

“The gist of that is that by-rights would be lowered, and in most cases the ability to do more with an SUP would be increased, and the beauty of an SUP is that it gives us the opportunity to mitigate specific concerns resulting from that development that we might not otherwise be able to deal with,” Tolbert said.

After a discussion, Tolbert asked the Commission if they were satisfied with the direction he is going in on density. Farruggio said his presentation had been helpful. Keller asked for Tolbert to put his rationale into a narrative that she could read.  Lewis said she would have preferred to see the height and density adjustments undertaken in the same ordinance change, given that both will affect property owners.

After the two items were concluded, Farruggio asked if any members of the development community would like to weigh in on the discussion. Just as architect John Matthews was about to speak, Commissioner Keller raised an objection.

“I have no problem with listening to what [Mr. Matthews] is trying to say, but in my experience prior to joining the Planning Commission the work session was a closed meeting and I often attended work sessions and took notes but  I didn’t have an opportunity to speak,” Keller said, adding that the Commission needed a policy to govern public comment at work sessions. “There may have been people who would have attended this meeting and didn’t because they knew they wouldn’t have an opportunity to have input.”

Lewis said the Commission took comment during the historic preservation work sessions. Keller said if the public is allowed to comment, it should be reflected on the agenda.  Deputy City Attorney Rich Harris said he would come up with a policy that distinguished between a public hearing and public comment at a work session.

When Matthews finally spoke, he identified himself as an architect who is working on many projects on West Main. He said he thought increased building heights and densities were vital to the health of the corridor, and would not threaten the existing character.  Matthews also added that higher densities fit in with the City’s desire to become more sustainable.
Ivor Romenesko of the Appraisal Group and the Landmark Realty group pointed out that the City’s future growth in tax collections would come through additional density, and that increased residential density on West Main was justified because of the economic engine of the University of Virginia.

Developer Keith Woodard suggested that the special use permit process have clear guidelines that would allow developers to keep engineering costs lower by knowing what would be expected of them. He also disagreed with lowering by-right densities.
Ashley Cooper suggested that the City develop three-dimensional models to help the public understand the big changes that will be coming.

Keller supported Woodard’s request, and called for guidelines. “I’m concerned about us approving this ordinance and not being prepared to make decisions about special use permits,” Keller said. Cheri Lewis asked for more information on what other communities require for special use permits, and also wanted to know what design control powers the Commission would have.

When asked by Rosensweig if the intent was to improve the City’s ability to obtain proffers, Tolbert pointed out that proffers will not be part of the SUP process. Instead, the City can impose specific conditions directly related to the project, which could involve cash.

Rosensweig then asked if the density changes could help create more affordable living choices. Tolbert said  a new bill passed by the General Assembly at the request of the City of Charlottesville gives the City more power. The City will be able to require a percentage of “affordable” units as a condition for each SUP. As with the County, the developer can either build the number of units, or contribute to the City’s affordable housing fund.

Timeline for podcast:

• 1:00 - Vice Chair Mike Farrugio opens the meeting
• 1:47 - Commissioner Cheri Lewis expresses concern about the Whole Foods item being on the agenda
• 4:50 - Neighborhood Development Services Director Jim Tolbert explains why the Whole Foods proposal was on the agenda
• 6:01 - Commissioner Genovieve Keller asks how items get added to the work session agenda
• 7:18 - Tolbert begins presentation on building heights, and lists the members of the committee that came up with the recommended ordinance changes
• 9:40 - Tolbert relates the concerns that prompted the study
• 10:30 - Tolbert lists the heights currently allowed under existing zoning, and describes the proposed changes
• 17:33 - Commissioner Keller asks why the committee felt the need to raise by-right building heights on West Main Street
• 18:07 - Commissioner Rosensweig asks why buildings on the south side could be 31 feet taller than on the north
• 19:18 - Tolbert explains why different zoning districts are being proposed for Water Street and South Street
• 20:56 - Rosensweig asks further question about why different sides of Water Street have two different proposed heights
• 21:47 - City Historic Preservationist Mary Jo Scala points out her concern that one of the committee's recommendations were not reflected on the map
• 26:06 - Rosensweig asks a quick question about the Waterhouse building on Water Street
• 26:34 - Keller asks if minimum heights would apply to building replacements
• 28:25 - Lewis asks why Water Street would allow for 101 foot buildings (with SUP) while South Street would be downzoned to 45 feet (with no possibility of an SUP)
• 29:50 - Commissioner Osteen asks how the sun angle measurement of 38 degrees was determined, and Keller asks for a deeper explanation
• 33:10 - Keller requests to see more information about how the street height figures were calculated for West Main
• 37:09 - Commissioner Farruggio asked how Committee arrived at idea to allow 70 feet buildings by-right on the southern side of East Jefferson Street, prompting discussion
• 47:33 - Keller asks for information on why the Downtown maps changed between November 07 and January 08
• 49:37 - Tolbert says he is not sure if the corner of Garrett and Ridge Streets should be classified under the West Main South Zoning District.
• 52:40 - City Councilor David Brown asks for a timeline on the ordinance changes
• 55:35 - Farruggio asks if his fellow Commissioners have any further comments, and Keller expresses her concerns with treating the two sides of West Main Street differently
• 1:05:40 - Osteen said the Committee had consensus that multiple sections of West Main would be developed as "destination nodes"
• 1:10:25 - Farruggio opens up discussion on proposed density changes, and Tolbert lists the various proposed changes
• 1:22:08 - Farruggio says he is concerned that the higher densities would encourage an overabundance of 1,000 square foot units
• 1:24:56 - Tolbert answers questions about bedroom limitations and requirements in the ordinance
• 1:30:00 - Tolbert asks the Commission if they would like staff to continue pursuing the density changes
• 1:31:45 - Farruggio asks members of the development community if they would like to speak, and Commissioner Keller interrupts architect John Matthrews to object
• 1:36:15 - Architect John Matthews comments on the plan
• 1:37:46 - Ivor Romenesko of the Appraisal Group and the Landmark Realty group
• 1:40:32 - Developer Keith Woodard suggested that the special use permit process have clear guidelines
• 1:42:12 - Ashley Cooper of Atwood Architects, followed by follow-up comments from Woodard, Romenesko, and Matthews
• 1:45:46 - Farruggio closes the public comment session and returns discussion to densities
• 1:50:20 - Tolbert asks Commission if they are interested in revisiting the City's Highway Corridor zoning classification to allow for larger medical buildings, and the Commission appears to be receptive to the idea, followed by adjournment

Sean Tubbs

Planning Commission suggests keeping second Mall Crossing as is

The Charlottesville Planning Commission has endorsed keeping the second vehicular crossing in its current location on 4th Street NE. They will officially vote on the issue at their next regular meeting on March 11, 2008, though the item is likely to be put on the consent agenda.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080225-CPC-Mall-Crossing.mp3

The second crossing was opened as a year-long pilot project in May 2006. After the experiment, Council voted in June 2007 to make the temporary crossing permanent, but directed staff and the Planning Commission to revisit whether 4th Street was the most appropriate crossing.

The Commission’s endorsement came during a work session held on February 26, 2008. The Commission voted 4-3 in December to continue the second crossing, but left open the question of whether the crossing should be moved one street over to 5th Street NE.  The Commission was also directed by City Council to consider the possibility of reversing the flow of traffic. The second crossing currently travels southbound on 4th Street E.

After sorting through more than a year’s worth of pedestrian counts and studying the various alternatives, staff recommended keeping the 4th Street crossing, and keeping direction flowing southbound because of the proven safety record of the arrangement. Angela Tucker, Charlottesville’s Development Services Manager, told the Commission there had been no accidents since the opening of the crossing. Additionally, re-orienting the flow of traffic would mean traffic lights on Market Street might have to be shifted.

Angela Tucker explains the reasoning behind staff's recommendation to keep 4th Street as the second crossing

Tucker wrote in her staff report that the cost of either option would be approximately $700,000. Work to upgrade the crossing and to move overhead utilities underground will coincide with the Downtown Mall renovation project.

During the discussion, none of the six Commissioners present supported making any  changes. Even though he voted against the second crossing in December, Commissioner Mike Farruggio said he thought there would be a public outcry if traffic flow is reversed.

One Commissioner  asked if there would be a curb on the mall, but Tolbert said there would not be. If anything, the vehicular crossing will likely be slightly elevated above the mall to signal to motorists that they are driving in pedestrian space.

Commissioners also discussed ways to stop vehicles from stopping and parking in the middle of 4th Street. Many delivery trucks use the space, even though the Mall is not a loading zone. Tolbert said a downtown parking study is underway that will include suggestions on how to improve delivery to vendors on the Mall.

Council will make the final decision at a meeting later this year.

Sean Tubbs

Council says no to fountains on Downtown Mall

When the MMM Design group unveiled conceptual plans for the downtown mall revitalization project last month, one of the new elements suggested was a set of interactive fountains. Members of the Charlottesville City Council were not so receptive to the idea at a February 11 work session. The meeting happened just two weeks after the City held a series of design charettes with citizens and business owners. Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Services, said the exercise was productive.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080211-CC-Mall.mp3

“I think we were able to take a project that some folks were really concerned about and after going through the process, they’ve gotten on board with it and are excited about it,” he said. Yet, Tolbert acknowledged there is still some degree of nervousness from businesses owners who don’t want their livelihood threatened during construction. 

No decisions have been made yet regarding the timing and phasing of the project, which only includes the Mall itself. This project does not include work on the side streets, according to Tolbert. Some of that work will be done in stages as various construction projects are performed along the Mall.

Joe Schinstock of MMM Design said his team has been evaluating the general health of the Mall over the past nine months. They found that the utility lines underneath are in good shape, the lights and fountains are in poor shape, and that the willow oak trees are “generally in good health” though their life-spans will be shorter because of the stressful environment. The bricks, however, are deteriorating because of the method of construction – bricks laid on top of a concrete slab, connected with mortar.

“One of the things the City tasked us with doing is to not just make the mall fresh, but to look for opportunities to enhance the Mall,” Schinstock said. While that means building a more durable pedestrian walkway, it also means making the Mall accessible to fire trucks. Currently access is only available via the two ends.

Schinstock said the Board of Architectural Review wants the revitalization project to be absolutely faithful to the original Lawrence Halperin design of the Mall, down to the size of the bricks to be used.

“They would prefer us to stay with a wire-cut extruded brick, and also insisted we pursue the same size brick that’s out there now, which is a 4 x 12,” Schinstock said. However, that style of brick is no longer commonly available, and would have to be shipped in from Nebraska. “In terms of a carbon footprint, bringing the amount of brick we need on this Mall from there versus a local Virginia plant, you’re looking at over 180 tons of carbon,” he said.

There is no final cost estimate at this time. Other unknowns include whether the project will be phased and what sections will be revitalized first. Schinstock said the project is expected to be advertised for bid by the end of the year.

In his presentation to Council, Schinstock described new design features that MMM is suggesting for the Mall. They include areas for art installations on the West end of the mall near the Omni, a Sister City Plaza on the west end, new water features at Central Place, and an interactive water fountain on the east end. Schinstock said the fountains would likely cost several hundred thousand dollars. 

Councilor Julian Taliaferro asked what would happen to the existing bricks. Schinstock said there were several options, including being ground up to use for trails elsewhere in the City, or used to delineate various portions of the Mall. “They will not be land-filled,” he said.

Councilor Satyendra Huja said he had a paternal interest in the future of the Mall, given that he was one of the City planners who helped coordinate its installation in the mid 1970’s. “I think if you can keep the spirit of the original design, we’ll be better off,” he said. He said the cost of the fountains is too high, the west end access point is already wide enough, and that the revitalization project should simply be about replacing bricks and lights.

Councilor David Brown said he agreed with Huja, and that the revitalization project should be simple. “I worry a little about trying to make the Mall do too much to appeal to too many people,” he said. He also said he wanted to hear from the BAR about why they do not approve of any other size of brick.

Councilor Holly Edwards said she liked the idea of a children’s area, but thought an interactive water fountain would not be the most appropriate. She also said that she would like to see some sort of element that represents the City’s diverse population. “This is an opportunity to change the social context of the Mall and also make it more welcoming for everyone who lives here,” she said.

MMM Design will now incorporate feedback from Council and the charettes into a revised conceptual plan. That plan will go before the Board of Architectural Review later this year. If the BAR awards a certificate of appropriateness, the project can be advertised for bid.

Sean Tubbs

Downtown Mall design concepts shared with community

On January 28, 2008, the City of Charlottesville held a stakeholder meeting and design charrette related to the Downtown Mall renovation project for business and nonprofit representatives.  Two additional meetings are being held tomorrow [morning & evening].

Jim Tolbert, Director of Charlottesville’s Neighborhood Development Services, told the nine community members in attendance that the City wants to hear their ideas about the future of the Downtown Mall.  “We haven’t made any decisions yet….Keeping businesses viable and open is our goal,” said Tolbert.  An online survey is also available to collect citizen feedback on the Downtown Mall project.

Facilitator Becky Clay Christensen said the goal of these meetings was to describe the emerging design concepts and to collect additional feedback on design elements that are missing, are a concern, or that have the support of the community.

Bob Stroh, Co-Chair of the Downtown Business Association, said, “I see a system under stress from every conceivable direction.”  Christensen said that the design team had been meeting with business representatives on the Mall since last October.  Christensen acknowledged that there had been “extreme tension” around the construction period and the phasing of the project in her meetings with the business community.

Chris McKnight, a consultant with MMM Design Group, said his firm had been hired by the City to complete a renovation plan that would honor the original 1974 design by Lawrence Halprin, but also integrate ideas from the City’s 2001 Master Plan for the Mall prepared by Wallace, Roberts and Todd.  McKnight said the project would involve a tree replacement program, new pavers for the walking surface, improved lighting, new fountains, Art-in-Place displays, and enhancements for Mall cafes.

Participants in the stakeholder meeting were asked to note their likes, their concerns, and suggested missing features in the design concepts.  New water features anchoring both ends of the mall received positive feedback, and questions about maintenance issues and the use of recycled rain water.  One concept shows a staircase of pools between the ice rink and the Omni Hotel (illustration above).  At the East end of the mall in front of Bashir’s, the plan shows an interactive splash water feature that will be activated by pedestrian movements.  The water nozzles will be integrated into the new mall surface.  The design concepts also feature new information kiosks, seating, and new trees.

The Mall’s willow oaks would normally have a life span of 100 years.  However, in the harsh urban environment, the trees are expected to only last 40-60 years.  Taylor Gould, Senior Landscape Architect with MMM Design Group, told the audience that the new willow oaks would be phased in as part of a tree replacement program.  The ginkgo trees on the side streets would be maintained.  Existing red maples would be replaced with another more tolerant species that strengthens the mall’s green canopy.

How much “green” will be seen by mall businesses during the construction was a key concern in a recent Business Impact Survey.  Both Christensen and Tolbert emphasized the importance of a marketing program that supports businesses during the two to three year construction period.  “The City is committed to working with downtown businesses on increased advertising and special events to ensure the public knows they are open for business,” said Tolbert. 

According to Tolbert, construction is expected to begin in 2009, but the exact staging or phasing of the project has not been decided.  “We don’t know yet… Until we bring in a construction management team and finalize the design, we won’t know the [construction schedule].”

Brian Wheeler

MyDowntownMall.com

The City of Charlottesville has launched a website related to the upcoming overhaul of the pedestrian Downtown Mall.

A lot of the information on the site is still marked "coming soon..."  However, earlier this week they released a Business Impact Survey report.

"As part of the process of updating and renovating the Downtown Pedestrian Mall, the City is seeking input from an array of stakeholders including residents, visitors and business owners. The latter group is of vital importance to the City as the restaurants, retail stores and entertainment venues are the driving force behind the mall’s success. Most agree that the update is necessary and everyone is aware that the process of construction may be disruptive and possibly devastating to businesses if not managed properly."

Here are some sample comments in the Business Impact Survey from restaurants contemplating the mall reconstruction expected to start no sooner than January 2009.

• “Everything and everyone comes through the front door: people, deliveries and trash. If the mall is disrupted in front of us, we will close.”
• “Any disruption or closure of the patios will hurt us. Also, any loss of electric or gas for any amount of time.”
• “The loss of the patio in the spring or summer will kill our business.”

Art galleries had the following "representative comments":

• "If they disrupt 5th Street, we are screwed."
• “We need to have a strong public relations campaign to combat negative media attention.”

As public meetings hit the calendar on this project, Charlottesville Tomorrow will make sure you are informed of the opportunities to participate.

Brian Wheeler

Top-10 Growth & Development Stories of 2007

In my weekly appearance today on WINA AM 1070 on the Charlottesville Right Now program, Coy Barefoot and I counted down Charlottesville Tomorrow's top-10 growth and development stories of 2007.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: 20080103-RightNow.mp3

Charlottesville Tomorrow's Top-10 Growth and Development Stories of 2007

1. County Elections 2007—Ann Mallek elected Supervisor in White Hall District
2. 4,800 new homes approved at Biscuit Run, Hollymead Town Center, and Rivanna Village
3. Wendell Wood’s projects around National Ground Intelligence Center on Route 29N get new scrutiny by media, public, and local government
4. Albemarle Supervisors set new cash proffer expectations
5. Proposed rural area protection ordinances stalemate Board of Supervisors
6. Lack of rain leads to drought warnings
7. City Planning Commission debates ethics, communications with the public and developers, impartiality, and starts holding pre-meetings off camera
8. Water and sewer infrastructure needs get increased community attention
9. City approves another nine-story downtown building and receives recommendations to limit future building heights in some areas
10. Major capital projects continue facility improvements at the University of Virginia

Brian Wheeler

The gathering before the crossing: Commissioners debate impartiality

At their meeting Tuesday, December 11, 2007, Charlottesville Planning Commission voted 4-3 that a second vehicular crossing of the Downtown Mall was consistent with City’s recently updated comprehensive plan.  Commissioners expressed interest in holding a work session at a future meeting to prepare a recommendation as to whether a permanent crossing should remain at 4th Street East, where it has been piloted over the past year, or moved to 5th Street East.

However, heading into the evening’s discussion, it was not clear who would be chairing the meeting or who would be voting on the matter, if anyone.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20071211-CityPC.mp3

During 2007, the City Planning Commission has begun holding short meetings in advance of their regular meeting in Council chambers.  During the half hour “gathering” Tuesday, held in a small conference room down the hall from chambers and not broadcast on local TV, Chairman Bill Lucy asked his colleagues whether they even wanted to vote on the mall crossing matter.  A majority of the commission expressed support for holding the public hearing, but deferring any action.  Lucy also announced that he would not act as chair during the discussion of the mall crossing.

Discussion in the pre-meeting focused on the appropriate role of the Commission and the meaning of impartiality and recusal.  Commissioner Cheri Lewis told her colleagues she thought several of them should recuse themselves from the vote since, in her opinion, they were not acting in the spirit of the Commission’s operating guidelines which called for impartiality.  There was some discussion about whether Lucy was recusing himself from the matter or just stepping down temporarily as chair.  Rich Harris, Deputy City Attorney, advised Lucy that if he planned to vote on the matter in the future and participate in the discussion, then he was not recusing himself.  Commissioners could recuse themselves if they had a conflict of interest on a matter on the agenda.  Typically a recused member leaves the room to avoid being a participant.

A partial transcript of the pre-meeting discussion can be found at the bottom of this post and the complete audio is included above as a podcast.

Later in the evening, when the commission reconvened after a recess to begin their public hearings, Lucy announced that the rest of the meeting would be presided over by Farruggio, the Commission’s Vice Chair.  No explanation was offered to the public at this point in the meeting as to why Farruggio was made the presiding officer over all the evening’s public hearings.

When the mall crossing matter was before the Commission, Lewis raised a point of privilege and asked whether three members should be participating in the mall crossing discussion.  Lewis cited the following clause in the Commission’s operating guidelines:

“Members shall discharge their duties and responsibilities in an impartial manner, without favor or prejudice toward any person or group. When making a decision or recommendation Members shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the professional planning staff, but shall ultimately be guided by good zoning and planning practices and the public health, safety and welfare.”  Approved May 8, 2007

After some discussion by the commission, Farruggio told the public he would not be recusing himself from the matter and then he asked Pearson and Lucy about their intentions.  “I feel I can be impartial and I would like to continue to participate in this meeting,” said Pearson.  Lucy said he could also be impartial but that participation in the public hearing raised other questions for any commissioner.  “The question is whether you are going to bring your mind to the subject and think about it,” said Lucy.

Lewis again voiced her concerns about the exchange of e-mails in advance of the meeting and she suggested that such action should be avoided in the future on matters coming before the Commission.  At this point, the Commission started their public hearing on the mall crossing matter which resulted in the 4-3 vote (Farruggio, Lucy, and Mitchell against) that the crossing was consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Brian Wheeler

---

Charlottesville Planning Commission Gathering, December 11, 2007, 4:00 - 4:30 PM

Participants:

Bill Lucy, Chairman
Mike Farruggio, Vice Chairman
Genevieve Keller
Cheri Lewis
Hosea Mitchell
Michael Osteen
Jason Pearson
Staff: Missy Creasy, Jim Tolbert, and Rich Harris

Lucy - “As you know this is called a gathering… we do need to have minutes as this is a public meeting.”

Lucy - “We have a very long agenda as you know… Beyond the issues of time, there are the issues of comprehension and substance and uncertainties about items, public hearing items 4 [building heights] and 5 [vehicular mall crossing] in particular.  Do we have any preliminary sense of how many members can imagine themselves in some realistic way being ready to vote on the zoning ordinance tonight [related to the downtown building heights]?”

Tolbert – “I would like to take that off the table, because I have told people I am not going to be asking you to do that… I would not be asking because of all the comment.  What I asked in the email that I sent out was that we have the hearing tonight and we take all the comment, but that because of all the volume of letters that we handed out tonight [to each commissioner] …We would have the hearing and determine whether we need a work session.”

Lucy – “What about the downtown mall?  Is there anyone who can imagine themselves voting on [the location of the vehicular crossing] at 4th or 5th, on comprehensive plan consistency, and what else, oh $950,000 for the crossing?”

Lewis – “Are you considering deferring this whole thing?”

Lucy – “Yes I am, sure.”

Lewis – “I would be, because of the fact that this has been publicly noticed, I wouldn’t pull public hearings on either of those.  Whether we vote or not is a different thing.”

Lucy – “I didn’t say cancel the public hearings.”

Lewis – “I said are you thinking of deferring and you said, ‘Yes.’  I define defer as we are knocking it off the table right now because we are discussing it at 4:15 and I think that is inappropriate when it has been publicly noticed.”

Lucy – “That wasn’t the question.  So no comments then.  O.k. let’s move on.”

[several Commissioners express their confusion]

Pearson – “As I see it, we are here gathering to get some sense of issues, which is my understanding of what Bill [Lucy] was asking. What’s the likely direction of where we are likely to end up? What I heard in the term defer was the possibility that we would have a hearing but we wouldn’t necessarily vote on these issues. And you were trying to get a sense as to how many of us concurred with that sense.  I concur with that sense, but I am going to hear a lot of comments and I am not sure I am going to be ready to vote given the number of comments we have been getting on a rolling basis all the way up to the last minute”.

Mitchell – “The 4th vs. 5th, I have no clue.  On the Comprehensive Plan consistency, I’m pretty certain.”

Rich Harris, Deputy City Attorney – “On this topic there are a few things I want to mention to everybody. Hosea [Mitchell], you just mentioned about the Comprehensive Plan consistency… I want to reiterate that it is a two tier process for this downtown mall crossing.  First decide whether it is in accordance with the comprehensive plan.  After you get that under control you can decide whether it is going to be 4th, 5th, or somewhere else.  Just want to make sure everyone is clear about that process.”

Tolbert – [Clarifies that question from City Council was whether the vehicular mall crossing should be at 4th or 5th street, not anywhere else.]

Harris – “The other public hearing about the downtown zoning… I want everyone to understand that any legal advice given to you folks, that’s legal advice between me and my client, which are you guys.  And attorney-client privilege is confidential, not for disclosure or sharing.  I want you to understand that the privileges are in your hands.  Does everyone understand that?”

Pearson – “By that you mean it is at our discretion whether we share those communications or not?”

Lewis- “ That’s correct.”

Harris – “That is correct. If you are going to do so, I would make the recommendation that we side together on that…otherwise I can’t break up the fight...” [laughter]

Lucy – “In terms of managing the overall agenda, I have two thoughts.  One is that, when we have a really long agenda, like tonight, I think we should consider as a matter of common practice the sharing of the chairing and the possibility that the Vice Chair would chair some part of the meeting.  And in particular, I want to suggest that that would be useful tonight because of this rather interesting issue that has arisen, and I would prefer not to make that a diversionary subject tonight.”

Lewis – “I think if you chose to recuse yourself Bill you should publicly announce that.  If you are exhausted and it is 2:00 in the morning and you don’t feel like you can chair towards the end of the agenda and Mike can help, then that is another matter.  For public transparency, I think on the record you should…”

Lucy – “Well I am not going to recuse myself. So we have only 10 minutes [before the 4:30 meeting starts] are there questions about...”

Farruggio – “Is that going to become a contentious issue on TV tonight if Bill does not recuse himself?”

Lewis – “I am going to ask him to recuse himself publicly, yes.”

Lucy – “Recuse myself from being chair or from…?”

Lewis – “From chairing on that matter [the downtown mall vehicular crossing], from conducting a public hearing on that matter.”

Farruggio – “Alright so I’ll take over for that matter.”

Lucy – “Well or maybe earlier, that’s the question, maybe it should be earlier.  Maybe we can chat about it on the way up.”

Farruggio – “If Bill has discussion, is that going to be alright?  Will anyone object to Bill discussing or Bill voting?”

Lewis – “From what I understand, once you pull yourself out…you can’t participate in the discussions, you can’t vote… Recusal is different than a conflict though…”

Keller – “Is recusal necessary?”

Farruggio – “I don’t know if it is necessary, but I want it to be clear whether or not that if Bill is going to recuse himself from chairing that he going to be not discussing the issues, not voting on the issues.”

Lucy – “I think it is just a useful, simple device…”

Lewis – “A chair chairs the meetings, that’s the primary purpose.  You can’t just step aside. And I don’t think recusal is an admission of whatever, it’s just a procedural courtesy to make sure that as a public body we are conducting ourselves the way we should.”

Farruggio – “Let me put this on the table, then ask you a question, because what I want to avoid is Bill recuses himself from chairing, then I take over chairing, and then we start having some discussion, or we do end up coming to a vote, and then someone objects to Bill even having discussion and or voting, and that’s what I think we should decide upon now before we go out in front of the TV camera and we are public.”

Lewis – “Well we are in a public meeting now.”

Tolbert – “Recuse is different from stepping down as chair and letting someone else chair…”

Harris – “Can I ask what the goal is here?”

Lewis – “I guess to that end, I’ll present that memo to you guys too.”

Lucy - “The goal just be to minimize contention I guess.”

Harris – “So are you still looking to vote on this matter?  Or whenever the vote does occur are you looking to vote on it?”

Lucy – “Yes.”

Harris – “So you are not planning on recusing yourself from this matter.  I wasn’t sure where that terminology came from.”

Lewis – “Well should we talk about this now instead of on TV?  We adopted, all of us but Jenny [Keller who joined commission afterwards], six months ago, operating guidelines… for this organization.  Number three on those guidelines says that we all need to be impartial.  I have just handed [Pearson & Farruggio] a memo and I have also discussed with Bill, as a courtesy real-time, and said that both of them have said by e-mail that they are opposed to this crossing.”

Lucy – “I have not said that.”

Lewis – “Bill appeared before City Council when this was voted on last time.  What I was told was that Bill’s comments were opposed to the vehicular crossing.  Bill says that that is not true.  Bill was quoted in The Hook as being opposed, but Bill says that those were opinions when this was last considered and he was on the commission.  My concern is the guidelines say that we need to be impartial.  It is a tough call, because we all come here with our biases, our talents, our subject matter preferences…We don’t come here as clean slates, I realize that.  But I have never in my six years on the commission seen members express publicly their personal preference about the outcome of a vote that was coming before us at a public hearing.  This is not a site plan.  This is not something where we don’t have a public hearing.  We have a lot of people interested on both sides and this is a public matter.  And I think that if it is not a fifty-fifty chance that the members who have expressed a public opinion being opposed to this crossing… if there’s not a fifty-fifty chance that you can walk in there and have your minds changed by something that is said tonight then you should recuse yourself because you are partial and you have expressed your partiality publicly.”

Pearson – “Can I respond to that?  First of all I can say that I would be entering this meeting with a fifty-fifty chance of voting either way on either of the issues.  I am saying that partly because the e-mails you are referencing I do remember now… what I do remember expressing is that Mike [Farruggio] forwarded a letter around that expressed some strong opinions to Council and that he said that ‘This doesn’t present all the information. I am not sure I have all the information, but based on this letter it sure sounds like we are making a mistake and this sure sounds like it requires discussion…’ I read the letter he had forwarded and said, ‘Based on this letter, I too don’t have all the information…this sure sounds like from this letter we are making a mistake.’  That I agree with the Interpretation of this letter.”

Lewis – “You are impeaching Council’s decision and that’s not what I see as our job here.  Council has delegated to us two discreet questions that are very complex and that ultimately go to the ultimate question of whether there should be a crossing or not, but the issue of whether there should be a crossing or not is not before us.  Mike and I spoke about this.  I would hope you could have a clear mind, erase it, go in there and listen to what every single person has to say with an open mind.  But if you have already expressed an opinion that Council made a mistake in that vote, [then] I don’t know how you can [give consideration] to those two sub-topics impartially.  I have never seen Planning Commissioners express a personal preference before a public hearing vote.  I find it wrong.  Let’s just repeal the operating guidelines.  We reviewed and discussed them at length.  It said we have a duty to be impartial.  There [was] no wiggle room.”

Pearson – “Cheri… I must say I don’t see the partiality there…”

Lucy – “Ladies and gentleman, it’s 4:27 and we need to go to the chambers.”

Farruggio – “I have a question to ask first before we can go to chambers…Is there a test, as Cheri is suggesting, for impartiality? I can say right now I have come into a meeting feeling like I [feel] right now having some of the information and then came out with a different decision at the end.”

Harris - “That’s the idea behind a public meeting...”

Lewis – “But Mike if you have sent a public letter all around, how are members of the public going to perceive that?”

Farruggio – “I didn’t send it all around, I sent it to the Planning Commission and City Council.”

Lewis – “But you know that’s a public document because of the way you have distributed it.”

Farruggio – “I would agree it is a public document but I didn’t send it to the newspaper...”

Lewis – “This issue is whether the public that signs up to speak tonight will believe that Mike Farruggio, Bill Lucy and Jason Pearson can possible listen to him [or her] with an open mind.”

Harris – “The decision to be made is whether or not a mall crossing will go along with the comprehensive plan.  I didn’t even know about these comments that are out there, but if Bill or any of you can make that decision rationally, does this comply with the comprehensive plan, then I don’t see the issue.”

Lewis – “We are not a political body.  We were given an assignment, it’s a hard one, it’s very narrow to the ultimate question that Council has already decided.  It’s really hard.”

Pearson – “We are not a political body, so the idea of public perception swaying whether or not a member who is publicly stating… I am stating, ‘I can make an impartial decision.  Mike is stating he can make an impartial decision. To weigh whether the public will perceive or impartiality as impartial, that is a political consideration...”

[Commissioners leave the room]

City Planning Commission defers decision on location of mall street crossing

When the Charlottesville Planning Commission gathered for their monthly meeting  on November 13, 2007, they expected to have a discussion regarding the proposed Downtown Mall Crossing in terms of whether or not it should stay at Fourth Street or move one block east to Fifth Street.  As far as they were concerned, City Council had voted in June to make the Mall Crossing permanent, so the Planning Commission’s dialogue only needed to focus on its exact location.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20071116-MallCrossing.mp3

Upon reaching that agenda item, however, Charlottesville’s Director of Neighborhood Services Jim Tolbert informed the Commission that City staff preferred that the Planning Commission not discuss the topic after all.  He came before the Commission, not to give his scheduled report on the matter, but to instead declare that there was a great deal of confusion about what was being discussed.  According to Tolbert, City staffers had come to the conclusion that, in their last discussion, Council did not vote but rather deferred the issue to the Planning Commission. 

The City Councilors themselves disagree, and all believe that they did cast votes with the ultimate decision to maintain an East End Mall Crossing.  Despite the assurance from the voting body that “they did in fact vote and are wondering why we are having this discussion,” Mr. Tolbert remained adamant that the agenda item be deferred until after he could “get straight with exactly what Council did with their previous discussion.”  He waved off the timeliness of the matter with a nod towards the currently functioning Fourth Street crossing, and also told the Planning Commission that he intended to have engineers present at the next Mall crossing discussion.

Planning Commission Chair Bill Lucy’s response was that “the analysis of the 4th and 5th street options… really would warrant a work session,” so he would respect the request to delay the Mall Crossing item.  Furthermore, Lucy also brought up another new issue with the mention of ultimately adding more than one mall crossing: “Some of the arguments that have been made for a crossing would apply equally, and in fact more so, to two, or three, or four, or five more crossings.  I do think it really would be inappropriate for us not to at some time confront those additional issues.” 

Kendall Singleton